Delete Deployer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete permission requirement (manage_endpoints), which is genuinely useful context, but is silent on the confirm="YES" gate and dry_run default that make this delete irreversible in practice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short fragments with no wasted words, but the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economical clarity. The permission note could have been paired with a single clause on confirmation behavior at no length cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive delete with an output schema and a confirm="YES" safeguard, the description gives the agent only the permission and nothing about the two-step confirmation flow or irreversibility. An agent reading just this description would not know a confirmation string is required to actually execute.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including inline docs for deployer_id, confirm, dry_run, and org_id, so parameter meaning is fully carried by the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the permission note, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The text 'Delete Deployer' simply restates the tool name and title verbatim, adding no scope, target, or effect detail. It does distinguish the verb 'delete' from the read-only deployer siblings (get_deployer, list_endpoint_deployers), but the statement itself is tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Perm: manage_endpoints' tells the agent the required permission but says nothing about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to delete a deployer. No prerequisite or context is given beyond the permission string.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.